First Aid For Communists Suffering From Shock

First Published:Turning Point Vol. X, Nos. 1-2, January-Feburary 1957Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.

I – A Communist Audience

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT IS SUFFERING FROM SHOCK. Is it so shocking, therefore, that even the meaning of a clearly established word like “Communist”
is now in doubt? We address this essay in first aid to Communists and Communist
sympathizers. But how can we recognize our audience if the very word “Communist”
is in doubt? Exactly the point! We hope that our consideration of shock and its
treatment can apply Leninism as a fixative on the meaning of the word.

At a time when so many desperately separate themselves from any stigma of
Communism, there is a certain significance in adherence to the name. Despite
shock and its resulting confusion, those who still “feel like” Communists, those
who ”want to be Communists – if possible,” show a continuing “adhesion” to the
label. Therefore, we address ourselves to those who arc disturbed not by the
“label” but by the “libel.”

We know that today’s Communist is in most cases unhappy, insecure, depressed,
demoralized, derelict, hibernating, etc., etc., or in a word – CONFUSED. For
constructive purposes, we prefer to locate our audience in the newly confused
Communist and not in the newly enlightened ex-Communist or anti-Communist. We
also prefer to locate our audience in the sympathizers whose gravitation toward
Communism was not only impeded by the chronic opportunism of our movement, but
completely interrupted by Khrushchevism. Among such sympathizers we often find a
refreshing, objective evaluation of Khrushchevism unpolluted by a background of
“unthinking” within the Communist Party, U.S.A. We believe that one day, these
sympathizers will resume their gravitation toward Communism.

Our group has strong feelings (based on ten years of consistent work against
opportunism) that the reconstruction of the Communist movement in the U.S. will
not depend on “veterans.” To be sure, there are veterans aplenty – but mostly
casualties. Either the CPUSA broke their spirit with an effective smear job
(Khrushchev style), or the strain of cutting through the undergrowth of
opportunism-in the ideological jungle of American imperialism wore them out.
Perhaps these “veterans” should be more understood than judged, but certainly
they have not earned that respect and trust which one directs toward responsible
Communists.

Being sensible enough to recognize our limited resources and the complete
ideological devastation around us, we ha to choose not to attempt to reconvince
ex-Communist. It was their privilege to have been liberated by Khrushchev; it is
our privilege to greet their departure. Also, we do not appeal to the new
anti-Communists. If the anti-bug in them did not show before Khrushchev’s debut,
we can at least credit a clown with having produced the open rash. Wt appreciate
the separation now being effected between Communism and disguised
anti-Communism. (We hope no one expected us to shed a tear!) It is and always
was wrong to impede the EXODUS OF THE UNSTABLE. A loss is not always a negative
development. (How well Lenin engraved this paradox for history.) It is better
that Jacks-in-the-Box pop out sooner than later. This allows us to keep score
more accurately, allows us to improve our judgment of people. (Communists have
been too impressed with “operators” – too unimpressed with quality.) The exodus
harms us less in this period of embryo than it would by exploding later at a
critical point in our struggle.

We are not appealing to assorted, newly respectable, non-revolutionary
socialists who are busy uniting with Trotskyites (old and new types) and
Titoites to form a new all-inclusive, anti-Communist party of Social-Democracy
in the U.S. When we scratch the thin surface of this fashionable amalgamation,
we find ex-Communists and anti-Communists.

We may be asked: isn’t it possible that someday, after the reestablishment of a
solid, attractive Communist Party, that some ex-and-anti-Communists of vintage
l957 may want to return? We think this not only possible but inevitable. Man
changes radically in a lifetime - and certainly, not always for the worse. But
the job of reconstructing the Communist movement (currently considered
impossible by all kinds of “whine experts”) demands at this point a
concentration of attention on those people whose rare integrity qualifies them
for the hardest, most important – and in the end – most satisfying tasks.

We may be asked: how about those who represent the worst opportunism under the
very name of the CPUSA? What is left of the CPUSA is at this very moment
sub-dividing into (1) a major portion of ex-Communism, (2) a minor portion of
anti-Communism, and (3) an infinitesimal portion of re-awakening Communism. We
are not speaking here of the formal decisions of the forthcoming CPUSA
convention.( Our March issue will deal with these.) We are concerned with the development of individual CP members. For this reason, we also address ourselves to that third portion. But why do we think that it is infinitesimal? Simply because the best Communists in the CPUSA were evicted long ago.

The word “Communism” is so important today because it is so heavily honored -
both in the observance and the breach. The Communists whom we address – despite
their variations of confusion – have one positive characteristic in common: they
did not use Khrushchev as an excuse to convert and pervert themselves into
ex-and-anti-Communists.

II – Shock and Its Symptoms

The characteristics of shock seem, in great part, to apply literally to the
Khrushchevian-Communist world. Communists feel cold, faint, nauseated. They lose
identity (amnesia). Former “single-minded” comrades become anti-Stalinist
Communists (schizophrenia). Their fear and cynicism advertise their paralysis.
In Khrushchevian shock (hereafter referred to clinically as “Khrushock”) we are
not faced with calm people reconsidering facts and alternatives. This is a
hysterical situation in which frantic people flee from fantasies.

The main symptom of Khrushock is amnesia – a rejection of reality caused by the
ugly wastefulness of the Khrushchev era. It is necessary to explore this amnesia
which is incapacitating Communists. What is it that Khrushock has so violently
dislodged from the memory of Communists? Many things – but essentially, the very
definition of Communism in the period of imperialism. We are dealing with an
amnesia which obliterates the definition of Leninism.

Out of a mass of confused people, we have tried to make a logical separation
between those who have deliberately departed from Marxism, using Khrushchevism
as a new form of liberation, and those who have temporarily lost their bearings
as a result of Khrushock. Now, if we analyze the cause of amnesia and the
essential points of memory loss, we will be “in position” to treat ideological
loss of identity with first aid.

III – Cause and Analysis of Khrushock

The cause of shock was Khrushchevism, a suddenly announced perversion of
Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism, formally unfolded at the CPSU 20th Congress. There
have been great opportunist shocks before, but never such mass shock to the
nervous system of the international Communist movement. The seriousness of the
shock is due to the unanimous endorsement which the international leaders of
Communism gave to Khrushchev’s transformation of Leninism into Social-Democracy.

Khrushchevism put Communists into shock by destroying the dignity and
self-respect of international Communism through the use of Hearstian scandal and
the Hitlerian “big lie.” Khrushchev’s picture of Communists was a montage
plagiarized from the veteran models used by the international capitalist press:
hypocrites, stooges, liars, torturers, fools, etc. Reproducing this picture too
well, Khrushchev produced not only planned shock, but an unplanned boomerang.
The respect which Communists lost for themselves and their leaders was not
transferred to Khrushchev.

The ease with which Khrushchevism produced this amnesia is explained by the
weakness of Communist theoretical education all over the world. As a normally
imperfect human being, a Communist may misinterpret certain principles of
Marxism-Leninism and still be a real Communist. But when he removes the core of
Leninism, he becomes a Social-Democrat. The principles against which Khrushchev
made his frontal attack were already vague shadows in the minds of too many
Communists. We reduce these principles to three categories.

1. Khrushock produced an amnesia which obliterated the revolutionary
characteristics of Marxism-Leninism. In this category we place Khrushchevism’s
deletion of the Marxist understanding of the role of the state.

Since an understanding of the necessity for a violent proletarian revolution and
an understanding of the necessity for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat are
inseparable from an understanding of the role of the state, Khrushchevism
destroyed the perspective of Communist Parties in capitalist countries and
exposed Socialist states to attempts at counter-revolution.

Without its revolutionary characteristics, Communism has no reason for
existence; it bows out to Social-Democracy. When the Polish and Hungarian
states, suffering from amnesia, rejected the Dictatorship of the Proletariat,
they INVITED restoration attempts – and the fascists, instructed by the U.S.
State Department, did not spurn the courtesy!

2. Khrushock produced an amnesia which obliterated an understanding of the
necessity for a Stalinist MOMENTUM FROM SOCIALISM TO COMMUNISM. Socialism goes
forward to Communism or slips backward to capitalism. Socialism does not go
forward automatically; it is organized forward by a vanguard which amplifies the
Communist aspects of Socialist society ad gradually filters out the bourgeois
aspects. This is the meaning behind the priority of heavy industrial
development, behind the removal of the last remnants of small business, behind
the struggle to graduate the peasantry from the concept of private plots to
collectives and then from collectives to state farms.

Khrushchevism’s attack on centralization and its chain reactions in the other
Socialist countries acted as a brake on the momentum from Socialism to
Communism. When Khrushchev equated centralization with bureaucracy, he deleted
the essence of the scientific organization of Communist society and replaced it
with the most primitive liberal yearnings for free enterprise.

3. Khrushock produced an amnesia which obliterated the vanguard role of the
Communist Party. The resulting disdain for theory invited wholesale opportunism
and revisionism. Playing on the backwardness of the Communist movement,
Khrushchevism encouraged a vulgarized interpretation of Democratic Centralism.
Knowing that liberals object to centralism, Khrushchev (public relations expert
that he thinks he is) offered a retrogression to liberalism; he equated
Democratic Centralism with bureaucracy and thereby deleted the science of a
proletarian party’s efficient behavior based on a strong principled unity.

Unfortunately, most Communists do not remember (or in many cases never knew)
that Democratic Centralism “does not preclude but presupposes criticism and
conflict of opinion” (Stalin’s “Foundations of Leninism”).

We could subdivide each of our categories many times and include all of
Khrushchev’s innovations, but this would go beyond first aid. Instead, we have
attempted to emphasize three anti-Leninist deletions as the quintessence of
Khrushchevism.

IV – First Aid for Khrushock

First aid treats the most dangerous condition first. It does not treat a
Communist bleeding to death for astigmatism (even if his astigmatism was a
remote contributing factor to his “headline mentality”). The eyesight can be
corrected later – if the man lives.

In shock, the immediate problem is to insure circulation of the blood to the
heart and brain. Therefore, barring exceptions (like heat prostration – and
Communists have not been red hot for some time!), first aid provides warmth,
stimulants and blood when necessary.

TP has looked into its first aid kit for a compact packet that might be a
combined source of warmth, stimulation, and blood. We find it in Stalin’s
“Foundations of Leninism.”̶ – ;Foundations” can supply unlimited transfusion to
keep a revolutionary heart going and a dialectical brain from disintegrating
while it simultaneously corrects the most dangerous condition of amnesia: loss
of the meaning of Leninism.

It is the greatest outline ever written of the foundations of any philosophy. It
is scientifically so compactly and accurately organized that it becomes more
than one man’s outline of another man’s complex production; it becomes in itself
a creative masterpiece. Once it offered Communists a perspective of the whole of
Leninism while they studied specific parts. Today, its value is enhanced. It is,
indeed, a memory restorer, a compass, and a detector of Social-Democracy.

If TP sounds as if it considers “Foundations” a work of genius, a touchstone
capable of turning dross into gold, we plead guilty. In fact, in all honesty, we
warn anyone who prefers not to lose his respectable, Khrushchevian confusion not
to read this seductive pamphlet. Of course, someone will ask with raised
eyebrows (i.e., if his overworked eyebrows can still rise once more – after
Khrushchev’s horror stories),“What is wrong with TP that it can see such
excitement in a mere summary?” In a period of utter confusion which should be
referred to historically – the “dark age of Communism,” there is nothing so
satisfying, so scientifically artistic, so exciting as CLEAR, ORDERLY,
CONSISTENT THINKING!

Now, if the reader thinks that we will continue our essay by summarizing
“Foundations,” we must disappoint him. It is an impossible task.“Foundations”
is Leninism already reduced to a concentrate. Although we can’t integrate
Stalin’s summary into this short essay, we can do something better: we can offer
a free copy to any reader who requests one.

Of course, we understand that in this political shock there is an expected block
to treatment. A Khrushocked Communist is not particularly in the mood to read or
even to listen. But this is not so different from non-political amnesia. If the
state of amnesia is gratifying to the victim, he will not relinquish it without
a struggle. Such a tragic predicament the editors of TP have no control over.
The victim must in some way be dissatisfied with his own amnesia.

A comrade in Khrushock raises his head long enough to moan (by way of resistance
to first aid):”This mess is too disgusting to take. I’m too busy vomiting to
think.”

In case of vomiting during shock, the patient’s head should be lowered and
turned to one side so that the vomit will not go into the lungs. Vomiting is not
serious as long as one does not choke on it. Obviously, this applies
politically.

Comrades who carelessly gobbled historical baloney at Khrushchevian banquets
should not be alarmed at their own vomit as long as they don’t choke on it. In
fact, upheaval may disgorge a few lies.

Again, by way of understandable resistance, a comrade may announce: “I want to
be rid of all this filth of politics; I am getting as far away as possible; I am
divorcing politics.” A sensible comrade should not divorce Communism because he
found Khrushchev committing adultery with capitalism; on the contrary, he should
divorce himself from the adulteration of Communism and not from Communism
itself.

Even after inhaling the suffocating vapors of disillusionment rising from the
bog of Khrushchevism can one really renounce Communism and escape to... escape
to where? Capitalism has evolved the penthouse – but not the ivory tower.

Regardless of disillusionment, those factors which originally turned us toward
Communism are still there. The repulsive qualities of Khrushchevism have not
made capitalism more palatable. One still has no choice but Communism and – in
the absence of a Messiah – no choice but to find the essence of Leninism and
guard it with one’s own integrity against all opportunist operators who would
pervert it.

To those who resist first aid, we would suggest: what can be lost by trying a
transfusion of “Foundations” for the purpose of restoring the circulation of
principle?

V – Prevention of Future Shock

Comrades say,“How do we know that this won’t happen again? What’s the use of
trying to clear up this mess in preparation for a return engagement with another
Khrushchev?” There is no guarantee that this won’t happen again, that
opportunism, the disease which attacks Marxism, won’t again try a tour de force.
Only intelligent, outspoken Communists with courage based on understanding can
prevent this. If Communists learn from this mess, they never again have to
experience such a mass degeneration of the International Communist movement.

“Oho!–that’s too big a dish,” cries an injured comrade. “Do we have to change
man to protect the integrity of the Communist movement? That’s too hard.” In
answer, we pose a point in logic:

1. You are shocked by the impurity of the Communist movement.
2. However, you are skeptical about producing purity!
3. Therefore, what can you settle for except cynicism?

And how good is cynicism? Pretty weak stuff. Very Unsatisfying. Actually, purity
of principle is exactly what we have to strive for. Purity is rather a juicy
term, but one which Lenin and Stalin were not ashamed to use when it came to
safeguarding the integrity of the Party and its philosophy.

“How can this happen to men’s minds? What happens to supposedly principled
Communists who turn into scoundrels overnight?” Of course, it doesn’t happen
overnight. It only looks that way – in the morning newspapers. Surprises develop
over – a period of time. Let us offer an important test case.

Wasn’t it true that a non-Communist gravitated toward the Party because he was
developing the ability to think independently and courageously (i.e.,
radically)? Again, wasn’t it true that immediately upon his entrance into the
Party, he stopped thinking independently and courageously?. Suddenly, wasn’t his
loyalty measured – as it is in capitalist society generally – by his readiness
to conform, the most disgusting talent in the world?

All Communists know that this horrible picture of an independent radical turning
into a Communist mannequin is accurate. But only a few Communists ever met the
paradox head-on because it meant expulsion and ostracism. How about the
expedient ones who attacked their more courageous comrades for”disruption”? How
about the ones who criminally kept quiet? The truth is that Communists in shock
– despite shock – know what’s wrong. They did not stick to their guns. They
lacked courage. But what corroded that courage which impelled them originally to
join a CP? A false concept of discipline and unity subdued a genuine radicality.

Recently, an editor of TP wrote the following to a courageous non-Communist:

“Of course, there’s courage and courage. There’s the Communist (?) who is
ready to die in struggle, go to jail, etc., etc., – who nevertheless is
ideologically a coward. He will not stand up for what he knows is the right
principle – when that principle is under attack within his own mutual
admiration circle. This type Communist is capable of playing his individual
part within a group courage. He may play a hero’s role in a war waged by his
class. But – he is incapable of waging his own war when he, alone, at a given
moment and in a given place, knows the cruel, unpopular but correct answer.
For this he would need real ideological courage. Basically, I think, the
difference between the two levels of courage is a matter of understanding. The
man who not only guesses or imagines that an idea is right and necessary but
knows with conviction based on a maximum of factual information - this man is
capable of the most courage. Whenever people write to us about the problem of
courage, I find myself answering through Engels’ ;“freedom as the recognition
of necessity.” There’s the real secret arrived at scientifically.

“Why is there so little ideological courage among Communists today? The answer
doesn’t lie in immediate, direct, or superficial character traits. The answer
lies in understanding. Our Communists in the world today (and one cannot avoid
including the famous intellects!) have forgotten some of the things they once
knew. Many Communists never knew certain essentials. They never used their own
brains; they rode along on faith - sometimes faith in a good man and sometimes
faith in a phony.

“Consistently, I find very often that I have to respect the liberal or
non-Communist radical who acts in accordance with the limits of his own
understanding more than the “Marxist” who understands little of principle and
is therefore incapable of defending Marxist principle. I think that if real
Marxism is going to come back into its own, this is something that we have to
drive home. Then Communists will really be respected by all honest
progressives.”

The shocked Communist asks, “How did Khrushchev destroy so much so fast?”
Khrushchevism is the climax of a period in which opportunism infiltrated
Communism. It did not happen suddenly – overnight, in one Congress, in one
report. Revolutions are sudden – but are not made the night before. Similarly,
ideological counter-revolutions like Khrushchevism are sudden only in their
formal debut. Khrushchevism was fertilized with ideological manure for the last
decade and longer. Doesn’t that put the blame on Stalin? Not so simple! We
believe that Stalin made mistakes (and no one but us has so far criticized him
for the real mistakes), but it was Stalin who carried on the outstanding fight
against those who would turn Communism upside down. It was only after his death
that the scum rose up to the surface. (What better example than the rise of the
Gomulkas and Nagys from jail to government leadership!)

Can one blame Stalin for the fact that Communists all over the world were badly
educated and, in fact, de-educated during the last decade? Perhaps he can be
blamed a little – as any Communist can. But he who would place the burden of the
blame on Stalin really believes in a “cult of the individual,” in an
all-controlling miracle-man. The newly enlightened anti-Stalinist who must gnaw
away at Stalin should cautiously choose whether he objects to Stalin’s
interference or to his non-interference in opportunist developments in other
countries. He who sets both fuses is sure to explode nothing but his own
hypocrisy. This we know (and have detailed in previous articles) – that Stalin,
all his life, fought against the perversion of Leninism.

Can it be denied that once Stalin was dead, we were blessed with a heyday of
revisionism in the Central Committee of the CPSU? The speed of the current
catastrophe is due to the speed with which, after Stalin’s death, the
foundations were removed from Leninism. That, we keep repeating, is why our
slogan for reconstructing Communism is A RETURN TO STALINISM.

Where is the leader to lead us? Unfortunately, Communists are too used to being
led. They consider a leader not simply a talented comrade who through necessity
assumes extra responsibilities, but a mental crutch. Because we have not that
shining leader today, it seems to the depressed that nothing is possible. This
is downright undignified! Are we waiting, perhaps, for one of our dishonest
leaders who betrayed us to reconsider, to have pity to return to lead us AGAINST
HIS OWN BETRAYAL? We admit that, in exceptional cases, “this, too, shall come to
pass.” But do we have to wait for Comrade Pendulum to oscillate back to us so
that we can give our unthinking loyalty another fast swing?

When a man frees his own mind, he finds to his surprise that (1) he himself is
to some degree able to lead, and that (2) he is able to recognize the quality of
unadvertised leadership in others. He does not have to bounce into a pathetic
liberalism which rejects leadership altogether, which can look at a Lenin or a
Stalin and fail to see genius. Miracles do not exist; talent does.

But isn’t talent itself often dangerous? Since leadership breeds dishonesty
rather easily, how do honest people check on their leaders? How can Communists
satisfy themselves that they can prevent a recurrence of catastrophe? What
attitude is necessary?

Communists cannot be mystics or religious devotees. They have to think
independently. (Anything less is unworthy of the word “think.”) He who doesn’t
think with his own copyright brain is a trigger-happy menace to himself and his
comrades. When his best friend in the movement thinks, he will be loyally ready
to denounce him as an enemy -– although he knows better! Every comrade must have
standards with which to judge ideas and exponents of ideas.

But,”Suppose I don’t know enough to judge?” There we have an all-purpose
padlock which protects “operators,” pedants, and assorted swindlers. As long as
the rank and file feels forced to disqualify its own judgment, there is no check
or balance in a movement – any movement. What justifies the layman in judging
the wisdom of “experts”? (As if the expert doesn’t have the responsibility of
proving his point!) The act of judgment (agreement, amendment, criticism,
opposition) is part of the technique of learning – exercise for the muscles of
the brain so that there is developed more strength than is needed to produce an
“aye.” Worse than error is unthinking acquiescence. A gadget capable of sending
only one message – that the head should nod – is certainly not a brain but just
another product of IBM ingenuity.

Respect a deserving leader as you respect a deserving friend, artist, teacher,
etc. – subject to your own standards of judgement. How should an independent man
look at a leader?

Does the leader glory in his role, or is he too busy working to inflate? Does he
continually collect data from those he leads, or does he dish out a priori
decisions? Does he expect that these decisions be loyally swallowed whole and
thereafter substantiated with data obsequiously tailored for his gratification?
When this leader speaks, does he relish his own words, does he vibrate in his
own exhibitionist vanity, does he remind one of Elvis Presley satisfying his
audience? Do not neglect this point; since a leader tends to speak often, he
offers great opportunities for dissection. Communist leaders should deliver
themselves of logic; they should show no tendencies to act the clown.

Stubbornness in a leader may be a sign of honest conviction and perseverance,
but beware of the leader who weasels out of his own mistakes by rationalization,
by buck-passing, by blaming his own followers or the masses in general. A real
leader, with conscience, must feel relieved – even if embarrassed – to have an
error exposed because he is thereby prevented from compounding his error into
catastrophe.

Communists can allow themselves to be loyal only to their principles and to the
men who currently represent those principles. This is not so complicated. If one
has grown to love a leader for his militancy, should one accept him loyally as
he degenerates into a cautious, respectable, compromising excuse-monger? One can
judge a leader by his own past consistency. His own errors are thrown into
silhouette by the light of his consistency. Is this too much for a rank and
filer to judge? Of course not. He simply has to get up enough courage to borrow
the use of his own brain.

Communists should he disciplined for reasons of logic – not for conformity. They
should understand the strength behind voluntary discipline. Coerced discipline
is a hallucination which is incapable of producing revolutionary unity.
Obviously, if a comrade has to he coerced into accepting correct ideas, he
should not have been recruited – he was only harmed by being prematurely
recruited.

Recruiting was traditionally a bad habit: a snow job on an unsuspecting
sympathizer. The candidate for membership should know what he is joining, what
his rights are, what his responsibilities are (including the responsibility to
think). Why make a pressured delinquent out a respected ally? We should not
pressure people into a Communist Party, we should not harangue, induce and
seduce. On the contrary, we should make it clear that it is a privilege to
belong. We should understand - for the future – that the CP is strengthened by
the non-membership of unready or unstable elements.

In a reconstructed Communist movement we will warn new members against
conformity, against a Dale Carnegie concept of popularity. We will say to him:
if you fall asleep at meetings, we will understand that this is natural enough
and due to your overtaxing job or worse – our overtaxing boredom; but, please,
it is not allowed that you wake long enough to “endorse the brilliant report of
Comrade Organizer.”

If Communists want to protect themselves against future surprises let them take
a cruel look at their own contributions to this mess. Let them learn (at the
risk of rupturing a beloved tradition or two) to judge by quality and not
quantity, by consistent integrity and not popularity. Let them discover that
membership in a CP is no holy guarantee against sloppy thinking or even loss of
principle. (Even after more than a generation of Socialism, the human brain has
not been remade to perfection.)

We propose an interesting experiment to those who are so dismayed at the
disorganization of the Communist movement today. Look back – way back – at all
your experiences in the Party. Collect data on mistakes – including your own
(including the times you helped gang-up on a serious comrade who was honestly
trying to improve and protect the Party.) Reinvestigate all your old habits of
thinking. Having done so, can you really think that what has happened is so
mystical, uncontrollable, unpredictable? If American Communists were to become
architects of their own future and were to take note of the famous pitfalls,
they could one day produce a truly surprising CP, one which would become
generally known as the improper place for “operators.”

But first, before they lead anyone else, shocked Communists have to administer
some first aid to themselves, have to strengthen their memory, have to find out
what Leninism is, have to find out whether or not they still are Communists.
With a solution to this problem of identity will come an end to shock. Then, we
suspect, the whining will cease! The clammy coldness in the Communist movement
will be relieved.